The peculiar facts concerning Bishop Williamson keep
building up. More and more actions and connections are coming to light about
the one time Cambridge[4]
graduate bishop, revealing his real face, instead of that of the man who
unconditionally opposes the affiliation and the Conciliar Church that he
pretends to be.

His acts show Bishop Williamson to be a decoy, plotting with Fr.
Schmidberger, playing the part of expelling from the SPPX each priest suspected
of sedevacantist sympathies, and to attract the real opponents into the arms of
the Rome of the « antichrists », meanwhile counteracting them.

Exactly this way he has got the supervision of the Le Sel
de la terre magazine of the dominicans of Avrillé.

Earlier, we revealed the Anglican-Fabien Society,
globalist environment of his mentor, Malcolm Muggeridge[5].

Then, his unusual episcopal coat of arms, with its obviously rosi+crucian[6] symbolism.

Now, a priest who was well acquainted with Bishop Williamson, has revealed to
us on top of that the protection that the latter has
given to Fr. Urrutigoity[7],
presently entangled in several legal procedures, accused of homosexual assaults
on various victims in catholic colleges or seminaries[8].

Book of Mrs Engel – Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity at the elevation

Mrs Randy Engel
tells us more in her book « The Rite of Sodomy »,published in
2006 in the US. In a total of 1318 pages and 4523 notes, the
American investigation journalist Randy Engel[9]
documents the background of pederast networks at the heart of the catholic
Church since more than 100 years.

This monumental work of investigation examines the network of Cambridge and its
ties with the British secret services, particularly MI5.

Also, she
exposes the question of the homosexuality of Montini-Paul VI and the countless
accusations against him, to start with those brought forward by Fr. de Nantes
in 1969 and in 1993.

In her book Randy Engel dedicates several pages to the Urrutigoity affair and
the part of Bishop Williamson, implying Bishop de Galaretta.

You will find
this text in appendix.

These pages
describe with very crude details that make distressing reading, the
horrible reality of the acts committed by Fr. Urritigoity.

We have decided to publish Mrs Engel’s text uncensored,because of the horrible seriousness of the facts, and
we categorically refuse to cover with « Noah’s
mantle » these dismal and scandalous practices that under the pretext of «
piety » and not wanting to « scandalise the faithful », for such a
long time have been kept hidden for the faithful obstinately, whilst the
infiltrated actors too often have been profiting from the cover of laxity and culpable leniety from the side of the religious
authorities and who have, thanks to such behaviour of those in
charge, ended up in ruining the Church totally.

HISTORY OF THE URRUTIGOITY AFFAIR: A GAY PREDATOR AND MODERNIST PROTECTED BY
BISHOP WILLIAMSON

From Mendoza in Argentine, Carlos Urrutigoity went to study in the seminary of
La Reja (Argentine – SSPX).

His
homosexual tendencies and his attacks on chastity were detected in 1987
by the then superior of the seminary of La Reja, Fr. Morello, who set up a file
against him and asked for his removal.

Fr. de Galaretta, at that time superior of the District of South America of the
SSPX, and « other influential priests » of the SSPX, immediately stepped in to
protect the pederast seminarist.

According to a hand written note of Fr. Morello,
Bishop de Galaretta intervened to protect Urrutigoity after having been asked
to by the Calderon family.

Later, Bishop Williamson justified this behaviour of Bishop de Galaretta when
speaking to dr. Bond (the superior of the Saint Justin Martyr college, who made
the affair public). He said that a sedevacantist danger was imminent, which
made Fr. Morello appeal to the District of South America.

This action of Fr. Morello was followed by a fast transfer of Fr. Urrutigoity
to the priory of the SSPX of Cordoba (Argentine), allowing him to get a
recommendation and to have him self « whitewashed ». Then, in 1989, Bishop
Williamson welcomed him to the seminary of Winona in the US.

During this peripateia, Fr. Morello was
temporarily removed, in the first semester of 1989, to Santiago de Chili,
whilst Fr. Schmidberger was superior of the SSPX and decided about mutations.

Bishop Williamson made Fr. Urrutigoity write a letter of self justification
as soon as he arrived in Winona in 1989, and Bishop Williamson-‘Cunctator’ with
the Rose handed it personally over to Archbishop Lefebvre, asking and receiving
his authorisation for the admission of Urrutigoity to Winona. The
archbishop, so obviously « used » by Bishop Williamson, demanded of Bishop
Williamson to watch the suspected seminarist « with an eagle’s eye ».

At the eve of the ordination of Fr. Urrutigoity in 1989, Fr. Morello personally
went to Winona to denounce Fr. Urrutigoity, whom Bishop Williamson defended
because of the « humility » of Urrutigoity. He even called Fr. Morello a « liar
». Fr. Morello then was accused of « sedevacantism », and in the days following
his impromptu visit to Bishop Williamson, he was expelled from the SSPX.

In the autumn of 1993, Fr. Urrutigoity became
professor of dogma, latin and sacred music at the seminary of Winona. This
promotion of Fr. Urrutigoity was followed by important attempts in the seminary
of Winona to improve the Gregorian chant of the seminarists. On top of that, Fr. Urrutogoity distinguished himself by
insisting on « experiments » in the liturgy, showing himself in favour of the
reformded rite of 1965; these positions should be seen in relation with the
letter of Fr. La Rocque (SSPX) in January 2007, when he favoured adaptations of
the traditional rite of the Mass.

From the end of 1993 until 1997, the fermentation developed amongst the
seminarists so heavily, that in mid 1997 questions of liturgy and sacred chant
became subjects of profound discord between the seminarists. The doctrine of
Fr. Urrutigoity favouring a return to a idealised and romanticised « medieval
model » form which would have to be distracted that what he considered as «
excesses » of the catholic Counter Reformation that resulted form the Council
of Trent. This new doctrine of liturgy and sacred chant attracted around this
person, from then considered a guru, a small network of seminarists, that he planned
to organise as a secret association amongst the seminarist. It would reject
what he considered as tridentine « deviations », that are however nothing but
the glories of the Church.

Finally, after the agitation of Fr. Urrutigoity had been going on, and his
project to found a new community had been rejected by Bishop Fellay, he was
expelled from Winona in 1997. Bishop Williamson qualified Fr. Urrutigoity as a« young, talented but proud Argentine priest ».

At the heart of the conciliar Church, under the aegis of ‘Bishop’ Timlin, he
then founded the SSJ (Society Saint John) showing a traditional spirit in
liturgy and Gregorian chant, and that soon found itself compromised by sexual
scandals.

At last, the
moral misery piling up, Fr. Urrutigoity was questioned and dragged before the
tribunal by a courageous layman, Dr. Bond, superior of the Saint Justin Martyr
college, (affiliated to the SSJ), who, trying to alarm « Bishop » Timlin in
vain, and resisting all menaces, campaigned to bring the truth to the fore and
withdrew his college from the trusteeship of the SSJ in October 2001.

All these
facts, although they have been reported by Dr. Bond in 2001 to « cardinal »
Castrillon Hoyos, head of the roman dicastery of the Congregation of the
Clergy, have been covered by great silence and the SSJ has been protected by
the authorities of the conciliar Church.

Despite this procedure and the irruption in public of all these sexual scandals
caused by Fr. Urrutigoity, the pretended conciliar ’bishop’ Timlin went on
covering Urrutigoity.

In February
1999, Bishop Fellay wrote a letter denouncing Fr. Urrutigoity.

Bishop Williamson went on to keep silent in public about this affair, only
Bishop Fellay having reacted by an official writing to the conciliar
authorities.

There came no end to the complaints and denunciations against the SSJ, Fr.
Urrutigoity and against Fr. Marschall Roberts (a defector of the Institute of
Christ the King received by the SSJ). One victim claimed 1 million dollars of
damage with interest in 2002.

From then on there is a web site that contains all pieces of this dossier
against Fr. Urrutigoity and the SSJ (cf. Annex 2).

Father Urugoity found refuge near the conciliar « bishop » of Ciudad del Este
in Paraguay, « Bishop » Rogelio Livieres Plano. Once more he found him self
protected by a letter of this pretended conciliar ‘bishop’ who wrote on the 8th
of September 2006 a piece of mail in order to support the SSJ.

THE MORAL SCANDALS OF FR. URRUTIGOITY AND HIS LITURGICAL MODERNISM

From 1987 onward, Fr. Urrutigoity drew the attention of the superior of the
seminary of La Reja, because of manifest pride, keeping « particular
friendships », setting up a group of disciples, and because of homosexual
tendencies and moral scandals.

At La Reja, he
committed acts of touching the genitals of the seminarists at night, in their
rooms, during their sleep, or in the toilets, he bathed almost naked in front
of the seminarists, made shocking proposals to them, complained during
confessions to evoke temptations of impurity and moral matters.

A former
disciple of Fr. Urrutigoity at Winona, the ex-seminarist Matthew Selinger,
accused Fr. Urrutigoity in 1999 of having invited him to introduce a
suppository in front of him, of having bathed naked in his presence, or even to
have crept at night into his room to touch him while he slept.

Randy Engel underlines quite rightly that the use
that Urrutigoity made of suppositories reminds one of the techniques of the
Anglican theosophical « priest » and pederast Charles Webster[11]
Leadbeater, narrowly linked to the circles of the British secret societies and
to the Rosi+Crucian lodges. In these British occultist circles he practiced
techniques of sexual magic. We already mentioned this in our
file dedicated to the entourage of Malcolm Muggeridge[12], the mentor of Bishop
Williamson.

In 1998 official accusations commenced in the US against the sexual
extortions of Fr. Urrutigoity. During the same year the SSJ, headed by the
Argentine father, decided to integrate a priest expelled from the Institute of
Christ the King because of moral problems.

In March 1998 the police had to intervene, at the demand of Fr. Paul Carr
(Saint-Peter Fraternity), because priests of the SSJ had distributed alcohol to
minors.

From August 2001 Dr. Bond, director of the Saint Justin Martyr college,
made attempts to denounce the SSJ and Fr. Urrutigoity in front of the conciliar
authorities.

On October 14,
2001, Dr. Bond cut the ties that linked the college he headed and the SSD, from
which it depended, in order to protect the adolescents.

On November 19, 2001, Dr. denounced Fr. Urrutigoity
by means of letters to the apostolic nuncio in the United States and to
‘cardinal’ Castrillon Hoyos.

On November 21 Fr. Urrutigoity menaced Dr. Bond.

This attempt with Castrillon Hoyos seems to have had no result. We already
explained that « cardinal » Castrillon Hoyos intervened at the American
‘bishop’ Conference in order to dissuade him form sanctioning the paedophile
conciliar ‘priests’, and this in the name of « compassion ».

Castrillon Hoyos seems to play a part in protecting
conciliar clercymen involved in moral affairs.[13]

On January 12, 2002, the diocese of Scranton receives an accusation of a victim
of moral disbehaviour of Fr. Urrutigoity.

On February 6, 2002, Fr. Marshall Roberts is charged with a moral affair.

On March 20, 2002, a former student accuses the SSJ, the Saint-Peter Fraternity
and the diocese of Scranton. He claims one million dollars in
damage and interest.

In February 11,
1999, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X sent
a formal communication to Bishop Timlin in-forming him that Father Carlos
Urrutigoity had been accused of molesting a seminarian under his spiritual care
at the SSPX's St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minn.

Bishop Fellay
also indicated that in 1987, prior to Urrutigoity's accept-ance by the Winona seminary, Fr. Andres Morello, Rector of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix Seminary in La Reja,
Argentina had accused the priest of homosexual practices.

According to Fr.
Morello, he had intended to expel Urrutigoity from the La Reja seminary because
of his significant pride, his habit of forming "par-ticular
friendships," his formation of a faction of seminarians acting under his
influence and grave denunciations regarding moral matters.176

Among the
accusations brought against Urrutigoity by seminarians and laymen living at the
La Reja seminary were his uninvited nocturnal Visits into the rooms of young
men while they were asleep, the fondling and mas­sage of a seminarian's
genitals and buttocks under the guise of a medicai exam, and the touching of
the private parts of a seminarian in a restroom

Page 964

accompanied by
the remark, that the priest adored his "little round butt."
Urrutigoity was also accused of excessive probing during confession and
spiritual counseling sessions of the sexual temptations of pénitents; and
immodest dress (swimming in his underwear) at a summer camp that he organized
for young men from the seminary.177

Unfortunately,
the planned dismissal of Urrutigoity by Fr. Morello never took place as the
seminarian had the support of Bishop Alfonso de Galar-reta, the SSPX District
Superior and other influential priests.

Instead of being
expelled, Urrutigoity was sent to the Priory of Cordoba (Argentina) where he received the necessary recommendations that en-abled him to transfer to the SSPX
seminary in Winona. By this time Fr. Morello had been posted to Santiago, Chile, so he was temporarily out of the picture.178

However, in July
1989, when Fr. Morello heard of Urrutigoity's immi­nent ordination in Winona, he sent a confidential dossier on the candidate to Rector Richard Williamson at St.
Thomas Aquinas Seminary. Fearing this effort would not be sufficient to stop
the ordination, Father Morello traveled to the seminary in the company of an
associate. Upon their arrivai, they were confronted by Williamson with a déniai
or "manifestation of con­science," by Urrutigoity who proclaimed his
innocence of the charges against him. Williamson defended Urrutigoity's
"humility" and accused Morello and his companion of lying.

A few days
later, on July 16,1989, Morello who had been involved in an internal dispute
with the SSPX on matters unrelated to the Urrutigoity affair, was expelled from
the Society.179

Williamson later
claimed that Morello was not believed because he was reported to be connected
to a sedevacantist group in opposition to Bishop de Galarreta. Nevertheless,
Williamson was ordered by his supe­rior, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who had
reviewed the Morello dossier to watch Urrutigoity "like a hawk," a
virtualïy impossible task given the secretive life of a homosexual predator
like Urrutigoity.180

Fr. Urrutigoity
had successfully manipulated one traditionalist group against another for his
own ends.

Not only was he
ordaîned, but he was also assigned to teach at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary were
he was known as "Guru-tigoity."181

Little wonder
that in his warning letter to Bishop Timlin in February 1999, Bishop Fellay
described Urrutigoity as "dangerous" and noted:

The reason why
he got into trouble with the Superiore of the Society of St. Pius X is mainly
because we felt he had a stränge, abnormal influence on the seminarians and
priests, whom he seemed to attach to his brilliant, charismatic personality.
When he asked me to recognize the society he intended to found, among the
reasons of my refusai, I explicitly mentioned this stränge personal, guru-like
attachment between the disciples and their leader.182

Page 965

Urrutigoity
Faces Second Accusation

It was not until
two years after Fr. Urrutigoity had been dismissed from St. Thomas Aquinas
Seminary in Winona for "subversive activities," namely, the secret
planning of the Society of St. John, and had settled into the Diocèse of
Scranton with temporary quarters at St. Gregory's Academy, that a Winona seminarian came forward to accuse the priest of sexual molestation.

The object of
Urrutigoity's attempts at séduction and forced sexual attention was a young man
named Matthew Selinger who once idolized the priest. The two men had formed a
particular friendship at the seminary and Urrutigoity served as the
seminarian's spiritual director for two years before making his move.

Selinger had
some stränge taies to tell about Fr. Urrutigoity.

He said that on
one occasion he was constipated and went to Fr. Urruti­goity to get some
Metamucil. The priest offered him a rectal suppository instead. Never having
used one before, the seminarian thought it was an oral médication and put it in
his mouth. The priest instructed him in its cor­rect use and insisted that the
young man insert it in his présence as an act of "humility." Selinger
reluctantly resisted the order and went into the bathroom to insert the
suppository all the while rebuking himself for not being spiritually mature
enough to follow Urrutigoity's orders and crucify his "manly
pride."183

On another
occasion, Urrutigoity invited Selinger and his friend to swim with him in the
nude.

One night, the
young seminarian awoke from his sleep to find the priest kneeling by his side
massaging his genitals hard enough to produce an érec­tion. Selinger said his
first instinct was to punch the priest's lights out, but because Fr.
Urrutigoity was an Alter Christus, another Christ, he turned over and pretended
to go back to sleep while Urrutigoity quietly slipped away into the
darkness.184

The novel use of
rectal suppositories as part of Urrutigoity's grooming répertoire is
reminiscent of the grooming techniques employed by the early 20th Century
theosophist/pederast Charles Webster Leadbeater.

Leadbeater
promoted enemas, genital manipulation, and onanism as a means of promoting
physical, psychic and spiritual (occult) vigor among his youthful disciples.
"This spirituali2ing of paederasty absolves him from the guilt which makes
him hate society. ... His is no longer a common human weakness, for he has feit
the cleansing fire of divinity," related Gregory Tillet, Leadbeater's
biographer.185

By the time that
Selinger informed his superiore at Winona that Urruti­goity had sexually
molested him, the SSJ founder was safely ensconced as a chaplain at St.
Gregory's Academy selecting his next victim from a large pool of young men, who
like Selinger before he was molested, literally wor-shipped the ground that
Urrutigoity walked on.186

Page 966

In June 1999, a meeting took place in Winona between Matthew Selinger and SSPX Rector Wiliiamson, and the pastoral
team that the Diocesan Review Board had assigned to investigate the accusations
against Urrutigoity. The pastoral team consisted of Auxiliary Bishop John
Dougherty, a diocesan priest, and a lawyer from the Diocèse of Scrantòn.

However, even
after reading the Board's report on Selinger's testimony and with the knowledge
that this was the second crédible accusation of homosexual séduction and
molestation against Urrutigoity, Bishop Timlin decided that the évidence
against the SSJ founder was "inconclusive." He took no further action
on the matter.187 A classic cover-up was underway led by the Ordinary of the
Diocèse of Scrantòn with the coopération of Timlin's silent partner Fr.
Devillers, Superior of the FSSP.

Were it not for
the courage and détermination of Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond, President of the College of St. Justin Martyr and the moral and legal sup­port given to Dr. Bond by
Washington State attorney James M. Bendell, the cover-up may well have
succeeded.

181Terrie
Morgan-Sesecker, "Accuser to get reports in priests," March 24, 2004,
Times Leader.

182Ibid.

183Deposition
of Matthew Selinger in Civil Action No. 02-0444 in Pittsburgh, PA on October 24,2003.

184Ibid.

185See
Tiltett, The Eider Brother.

186Selinger
eventually left the seminary, married and settled in California to raise a family. When it
became known that he would likely be subpoenaed to testify against Fr. Urrutigoity in
the Case of John Doe, Fr. Eric Ensey who helped found the SSJ and who replaced
Urrutigoity as spiritual advisor for a time at St. Thomas in Winona, paid a
visit to Selinger and attempted to persuade him to leave the country to prevent him
from being called as a witness against Urrutigoity. He told the former
seminarian that Urrutigoity had "a medicai protocol" about the
penis. He said that if the priest-founder went down he would take him
(Ensey) and the whole order down with him. When thèse arguments failed to move
Selinger, Ensey said that Urrutigoity's lawyer had connections to the
Mafia—a suggestion that implied that harm might come to Selinger or his family
if he testified against the priest. Selinger said he had no intention of leaving his
wife and children to escape a subpoena
and showed Ensey the door.

On October 14, 2001, the College of St. Justin Martyr formally
dissociated itself from the Society of St. John (SSJ), a clerical
association in the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania. Since that time, the
College has striven to expose the moral corruption of the SSJ. Although the
primary purpose of the College is to establish itself as a great books liberal
arts College with an orthodox Catholic character, the College strongly believes
it has a moral obligation to prevent the SSJ from doing further harm to young
souls and from continuing to deceive Catholic donors.

The College’s moral battle against the SSJ has brought it into
direct conflict with Bishop James C. Timlin, who inexplicably persists in
supporting and protecting the SSJ despite the overwhelming evidence of sexual
and financial misconduct by SSJ members. In
retaliation for the College’s efforts to inform the Diocese of the SSJ’s grave
misconduct, Bishop Timlin has sought to obstruct and harm the legitimate
business and goals of the College. In response to Bishop Timlin’s gratuitous
attack, the College has filed lawsuits against the Diocese and the SSJ.
Readers are invited to inform themselves of the case against the SSJ by
accessing the documents and articles posted herein.

In a letter dated December 8,
2001, I revealed that Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, the founder and former superior
general of the Society of St. John, had been dismissed for homosexual
behavior when he was a seminarian at the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) seminary
in La Reja, Argentina. In that same letter, I noted that Urrutigoity,
after he had been dismissed from the seminary in La Reja, was admitted as a
seminarian into the SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota, where he was eventually
ordained and made a professor. Finally, I further mentioned that Fr.
Urrutigoity was subsequently expelled from the seminary in Winona as a result
of his subversive activities.

My letter left many readers with
the same question: How could it be that the SSPX
dismissed Carlos Urrutigoity for homosexual behavior from one of its
seminaries, but subsequently accepted him into another SSPX seminary, and then
ultimately ordained him a priest and even made him a professor there?

I put this same question to Bishop
Richard Williamson of the SSPX whom I contacted shortly after I learned that
Fr. Urrutigoity had been accused of homosexual behavior as far back as his
seminary days in La Reja. Bishop Williamson explained to me that Carlos
Urrutigoity had indeed been dismissed from the SSPX seminary in La Reja for
homosexual behavior, but that he was received into the SSPX seminary in Winona
because the key SSPX authorities in North and South American did not believe
the charges against him.

According to Bishop Williamson
(and others within the SSPX with whom I spoke), the charges against then
seminarian Urrutigoity were not believed because of
a deep division that was then taking place within the SSPX district in South
America. Fr. Andres Morello, the rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja, was
the head of the sedevacantist group. The District Superior, then Fr. Alfonso de
Galarreta, led the opposing group. The division was apparently so
intense that the two factions avoided each other. As a result, the SSPX
authorities—other than Fr. Morello—were willing to believe that the charges of
homosexual behavior made against seminarian Urrutigoity were trumped up.
Urrutigoity himself claimed that he was being persecuted and slandered because
of his stance against Fr. Morello's group.

Bishop Williamson further
explained that when seminarian Urrutigoity arrived in Winona, he was questioned and given the opportunity to write a defense, or
"manifestation of conscience," in response to the accusations against
him. Bishop Williamson then presented Archbishop Lefebvre himself with
Urrutigoity's written defense. According to Bishop Williamson, Archbishop
Lefebvre, after reading Urrutigoity's defense, told Bishop Williamson to admit
Urrutigoity to the seminary, but to "watch him like a hawk."

Bishop Williamson then told me
that he never saw any evidence of Urrutigoity's homosexuality while Urrutigoity
was a seminarian, priest, or professor at Winona. Bishop Williamson said that
Fr. Urrutigoity was eventually expelled from the seminary in Winona not for
homosexuality, but for subversive activities, namely, the secret planning of
the Society of St. John in concert with others. Bishop Williamson hastened to
add, however, that after Fr. Urrutigoity had been expelled from Winona, a young seminarian, who had left Winona with him, subsequently accused Fr.
Urrutigoity of homosexually molesting him. This young seminarian, with whom Fr.
Urrutigoity had had a very close particular friendship at Winona, had been
under Fr. Urrutigoity's spiritual direction for two years before Fr.
Urrutigoity molested him.

Bishop Williamson also told me
that he had accompanied this young seminarian when he gave testimony against
Fr. Urrutigoity at a Diocese of Scranton inquiry in July 1999. The inquiry was
held at the request of Bishop James Timlin of Scranton who sent his auxiliary
bishop, John Dougherty, along with another diocesan priest and an attorney, to
hear this young seminarian's testimony. Bishop
Bernard Fellay of the SSPX had set this whole process in motion when he
formally accused Fr. Urrutigoity in a letter to Bishop Timlin dated February
11, 1999. Bishop Fellay had sent this letter to Bishop Timlin
because Bishop Timlin had welcomed Fr. Urrutigoity and his followers into the
Diocese of Scranton after Fr. Urrutigoity's expulsion from Winona. At the time
of Bishop Fellay's formal communication to Bishop Timlin, Fr. Urrutigoity was
working as a chaplain at St. Gregory's Academy, an all-boys high school in Elmhurst, Pennsylvania, owned and operated by the Fraternity of St. Peter. Despite Bishop
Fellay's letter and the testimony of the molested seminarian, Bishop Timlin
allowed Fr. Urrutigoity to continue in his position as chaplain to adolescent
boys.

In order to learn more about the
charges against seminarian Urrutigoity, I next contacted Fr. Andres Morello,
the former rector of the SSPX seminary in La Reja. Fr. Morello is currently the
rector of a group called "Campania de Jesus y de Maria"
located in the Andes. I wrote to Fr. Morello to
ask him about the accusations against Carlos Urrutigoity while he was a
seminarian at La Reja. Below is a literal translation of Fr. Morello's
response :

------------------------------------------------------

I was the
rector of the seminary of La Reja from 1981 until 1988, having been previously
the vice-rector; therefore I was able to witness the behavior of now Father
Urrutigoity all throughout his stay in that seminary

I was
transferred to the priory of Santiago in Chile in 1989, and I remained there
from February until July of the same year. I was expelled because of a
denunciation or better said a confidential request I made for a canonical
investigation of some priests members of the Society of St. Pius X, and also
because of the support I gave to some seminarians who left the seminary of La
Reja.

When I was
rector at the seminary of La Reja, I had the intention of expelling the then
seminarian Carlos Urrutigoity for a number of reasons, mainly:

Against my
intention of expelling him, as the product of a delicate situation of intrigues
which at the time affected the seminary, and undoubtedly with the support of
certain priests and the then superior of the district (bishop de Galarreta),
instead of being expelled he was sent to the priory of Cordoba (Argentina). The good recommendations obtained there, as well as the support which I just
mentioned, motivated his transfer to the seminary of Winona (USA). Meanwhile I had already been posted at Santiago, Chile.

His imminent
ordination to the major orders obliged me in conscience to write a confidential
report to the rector of Winona's seminary, bishop Williamson, in order to stop
the ordination. A canonical report of such characteristics demanded reciprocal
confidentiality, and in particular to keep it secret from the person in
question. Bishop Williamson made it known to the then
seminarian Urrutigoity so that he could defend himself from our accusations.

On July 1989
we traveled to Winona, and bishop Williamson read to us the defense of Father
Urrutigoity, defended his "humility" and accused us of lying. A few
days later, on July 16, 1989, I was expelled from
the Society.

You know
better than I the rest of the story.

-------------------------------------------------------

According to Fr. Morello's
account above, he not only sought to expel Urrutigoity from La Reja for the
four reasons stated, but he even traveled all the way to Winona from Chile to
argue against Urrutigoity's ordination to the priesthood. The "grave
denunciations in moral matters," which Fr. Morello mentions as the fourth
reason for expelling Urrutigoity, were set down in writing as part of a dossier
given to Archbishop Lefebvre when Fr. Morello requested a canonical
investigation of certain SSPX priests (as Fr. Morello explains in his letter
above). The accusations of homosexual behavior made against seminarian Urrutigoity
appear in this dossier as part of a report entitled "Documento No.
2." This report was signed by a group of priests and seminarians from the
seminary of La Reja. Below is a literal translation from the three pages of
"Documento No. 2" which focus solely on Urrutigoity:

-------------------------------------------------------

Page 4, three last paragraphs.

The third
case is the one of seminarian Carlos Urrutigoity. Here the subject becomes
profoundly disagreeable because of the turpitude of the issues involved, and
therefore it is for us very difficult to speak about them. This is why we will
only present to you the most serious items.

During his
stay in the seminary of La Reja, this seminarian was denounced by a young
layman who lives in the seminary, for the following reasons which became most
serious as the time passed. Frequently the seminarian brought up in
conversation the subject of chastity. He asked him if he had temptations and
what did he do in such cases. Also he asked him whether he was a virgin, or if
he performed dishonest acts alone or with women.

In a
particular conversation he asked him if he went to the movies, and if the films
excited him provoking temptations. The lad answered yes, and Urrutigoity asked
if this prompted him to search for women, to which the young man replied again
yes. Then the seminarian asked if he would consider making the dishonest act
with a man. The lad said no.

Page 5.

The same
witness denounced as well the seminarian for entering his room without knocking
previously. One night at about 3:00 AM he woke up and found him inside the room
uncovering him. The excuse that Urrutigoity gave next day was that he had
entered the room in order to cover him. Before this situation the lad went to
Father Canale, a priest whom he trusted. He laughed and said to him: "The
only thing I can tell you is to lock the door." Father Canale was
therefore fully aware of the situation and he never talked about it with the
superior of the house.

The witness
says also that on one occasion the seminarian entered into his room and,
finding him in bed, told him that he had a fever. The lad replied that he was
feeling well, but Urrutigoity insisted that he had a fever and that in order to
confirm it he was going to fondle his genitals to see if they were inflamed,
and he did it.

One day
Carlos Urrutigoity gave him underwear, insisted that he should get naked and
try it on before him to see if it fit. He proposed that he take measurements
every week of his physical development, naked and with his back towards the
wall, which the young man refused to do.

He gave him a
shot and insisted on massaging his buttocks, which he did.

We finish
here the testimony of the young man, and we wish to make it clear that these
are not all the incidents, just those which we consider more relevant.

A seminarian
declares that being in the restroom he touched him in his private parts, and
that often he told him things about the private parts, among others that
"he adored his buttocks" (the seminarian had not yet received the
soutane). He said: "I adore your little round butt" (and made a
gesture with his hands).

Another
seminarian tells us that he asked him about the sexual life of his past and
about his present temptations.

Two traditional young laymen declare that during a summer
camp organized by Carlos Urrutigoity - with the inexplicable authorization of
Bishop de Galarreta, who knew about the situation,
and while the seminarian was in the priory of Cordoba under observation because
of his disciplinary problems - he went to the river with a group of young men.
There he removed his clothes before the others and remained in underwear. One
of the youngsters offered immediately a swimming suit which Urrutigoity
rejected, and in such attire he bathed in the river.

(Handwritten)
De Galarreta did not expel him because of the
problems this could cause, especially with the Calderon family.

We ask your
forgiveness, Father, for writing about these unpleasant issues but we consider
it necessary since nobody has heard our complaints. What worries us right now
is that (a) the superiors know about this situation.
Not only was the seminarian not expelled, but the solution to his moral and
disciplinary problems is simply to send him to another seminary. (b)
Carlos Urrutigoity is about to receive major orders in Winona, USA.
(c) a serious investigation was never started.

Page 6, first paragraph.

We are
worried and scandalized by all this. We have tried by all means to inchoate an
investigation to no avail. Bishop de Galarreta made
it impossible to take measures against him, and despite the fact that he now
acknowledges his mistake, he still does nothing to repair it.

-------------------------------------------------------

Those who are
familiar with Fr. Urrutigoity's more subtle modus operandi will readily
recognize in the testimony above the incipient techniques of a sexual predator
who was not yet able to manipulate others by means of the full authority of the
priesthood. Indeed, the above account confirms reports of Fr. Urrutigoity's
frequent initiation of discussions on "chastity" in order to test the
willingness of his objects of seduction. And given what is already known about
Fr. Urrutigoity's fondness for suppositories, it is not surprising to read
about seminarian Urrutigoity's efforts to manipulate "medical
problems" for his own perverse purposes. We also see in the account above
a slightly more modest version of Fr. Urrutigoity's willingness to parade naked
in front of potential victims. Moreover, we see here further testimony of Fr.
Urrutigoity's penchant for late night visits to those who are asleep and
thereby vulnerable to his advances. Although Document No. 2 does not accuse
seminarian Urrutigoity of sleeping in the same bed with other seminarians, there is ample testimony that Fr. Urrutigoity slept
one-on-one with seminarians under his authority at Winona, and with
boys and young men under his spiritual direction at St. Gregory's Academy and
at the Society of St. John's property in Shohola.

Document No. 2 and Fr. Morello's
letter also reveal that Fr. Urrutigoity's present suspension is nothing new for
him. Carlos Urrutigoity has been formally accused of homosexual molestation in
three different places, yet each time he has managed to evade justice by
enlisting episcopal support. Urrutigoity was first accused, as we have seen
above, when he was a seminarian in La Reja, Argentina. After Urrutigoity
was ordained a priest, and soon after he left the seminary in Winona, Minnesota, he was accused again, this time by the young seminarian who left Winona with him. The third accusation was made in a federal lawsuit by a graduate of St.
Gregory's Academy when Urrutigoity was the superior general of the Society of St. John. Note that Fr. Urrutigoity's victims came from three completely different
backgrounds and that they knew nothing about the prior victims. Hence, there is
absolutely no basis for the Society of St. John's claim that the accusations of
homosexual molestation reflect a conspiracy against Fr. Urrutigoity.

Note also that even those who
initially found themselves on opposite sides, such as Bishop Williamson and Fr.
Morello, are now all agreed on at least one thing: Carlos Urrutigoity is a
homosexual predator. How then can Bishop Timlin, without whose assistance and
support Fr. Urrutigoity would have long ago been stopped, continue to protect
this Rasputin in a Roman collar? Although Bishop Timlin has been repeatedly
warned that Fr. Urrutigoity continues even to this day to create scenarios that
place him in the company of young men, Bishop Timlin still does nothing but
claim that all the accusations against Fr. Urrutigoity have been fabricated by
his enemies.

All who are disgusted with
Bishop Timlin's failure to protect his flock from a clear and present danger
should write to him at xxxxxx. I also encourage all concerned parties to
contact Mr. Andrew Jarbola, the District Attorney of Lackawanna County: (1) to
exhort him to ensure that the ongoing criminal investigation of Fr. Urrutigoity
and Fr. Eric Ensey is both rigorous and independent of diocesan influence; and
(2) to ask why there is no news of impaneling a grand jury.

Accusations of sexual misconduct by Fr. Urrutigoity
in the wake of his departure from the seminary of the SSPX in La Reja, Argentina. Despite these accusations, Fr. Urrutigoity is accepted into the
seminary of the SSPX in the USA.

May 1997

SSPX USA

Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity, along with
another priest and 2 seminarians are expelled from the seminary of the SSPX
in the USA. Six other seminarians soon leave as well. We are told that the
reason for the expulsion is that they were planning to found a new religious
order.

1997

Diocese of Scranton

The former priests and seminarians of the
SSPX find refuge in the Diocese of Scranton PA, where the Fraternity of St.
Peter has its North American HQ. Bishop Timlin of the Diocese of Scranton
accepts them without doing background checks.

1998

Diocese of Scranton

Accusations of sexual misconduct by Fr.
Urrutigoity in the wake of his departure from the seminary of the SSPX in Winona, MN. After a diocesan inquiry is held, Bishop Timlin of the Diocese of Scranton
decides that there is insufficient evidence, despite a letter of condemnation
from Bishop Fellay of the SSPX.

1998

Institute of Christ the King

Fr. Marshall Roberts is expelled from the
seminary of the Institute of Christ the King because of accusations of sexual
misconduct. He finds refuge in the SSJ.

March 1998

St. Gregory's Academy, FSSP

The police are called in by Fr. Paul Carr
of the FSSP (Fraternity of St. Peter) after it is discoverd that the priests
of the SSJ have served alcohol to minors (boys).

Aug-Oct 2001

Dr. Bond of St. Justin Martyr College

Dr. Bond, HeadMaster of St. Justin Martyr
College, which is affiliated with the SSJ, learns of the sexual misconduct of
Fr. Urrutigoity. Dr. Bond then begins a series of discussions with Bishop
Timlin, and with the SSJ. Bishop Timlin refuses to suspend any of the SSJ
priests, despite evidence of wrongdoing. The SSJ refuses to admit
there is a problem.

Oct 14, 2001

Dr. Bond of St. Justin Martyr College

Dr. Bond decides that St. Justin Martyr
College must separate from the SSJ.

Nov 19, 2001

Dr. Bond of St. Justin Martyr College

Dr. Bond sends letters to Apostolic
Nuncio for USA and to Cardinal Hoyos, Prefect for the Clergy, telling them
about the sexual misconduct of Fr. Urrutigoity.

The Diocese of Scranton receives a letter
of complaint from one of those molested by Fr. Urrutigoity.

Jan 15, 2002

Roman Catholic Faithful (organization)

Press Release, asking for suspension of
Fr. Urrutigoity and any other priests involved in sexual misconduct, for
resignation of Bishop Timlin, for criminal investigation.

Jan 25, 2002

Diocese of Scranton

Bishop Timlin transfers Frs. Urrutigoity
and Ensey elsewhere in the Diocese of Scranton, but does not suspend them.

Jan 26, 2002

Times Leader (paper)

News of the scandal hits the secular
press.

Feb 6, 2002

Dr. Bond of St. Justin Martyr College

Fr. Marshall Roberts becomes a third
suspected sexual offender.

Feb 27, 2002

Scranton Times-Tribune (paper)

The DA's office of Lackawanna County, PA, launches an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by members of the SSJ.

Mar 20, 2002

National Review Online (paper)

A former student of St. Gregory's Academy
launches a $1 million lawsuit against the SSJ, FSSP and Diocese of Scranton.

Mar 28, 2002

St. Justin Martyr College

Fr. Richard Munkelt, formerly with the
SSJ, comes forward with further insights into the scandal.

Appendix 5

Extracts froms news about Urrutigoity and Williamson

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04May/may28ttt.htm

While he was a
tiller of souls as the gardener of the harvest, he also found the necessity to
weed out those who would weaken the soil. Such was the situation in 1997 when
he expelled Father Carlos Urrutigoity and two seminarians from St.
Thomas Aquinas Seminary. They subsequently took up refuge in the troubled
diocese of Scranton, welcomed by the undiscerning Bishop Timlin who
ignored the warnings of Bishops Williamson and Fellay. Now Timlin's successor
in Scranton is reaping the bitter fruits of sexual abuse lawsuits by priests of
the Society of Saint John which the rebellious Urrutigoity formed when he could
not pass muster under Williamson's watchful, careful scrutiny. Thank God the
Bishop was a good gardener and one of the signs of the SSPX to guard carefully
not only the Sacred Deposit of the Faith, but the virtues of chastity and
modesty.

http://www.sspxseminary.org/whoweare/winona.shtml

In the fall of
1993, the Seminary received two new professors: Fr. Juan Iscara and Fr. Carlos
Urrutigoity. Fr. Iscara assumed duties teaching Moral Theology and Church
History. Fr. Urrutigoity became professor of Dogma, Latin and Sacred Music.
Through Fr. Urrutigoity’s influence, the Seminary would soon begin to focus
heavily on perfecting the Gregorian chant of the seminarians.

(…)

The 1996-97
academic year began smoothly, but as the second semester approached, there was
a certain restlessness at the Seminary. Cliques had formed, and an
ever-widening rift became perceptible, dividing seminarians in everything from
the Liturgy to Gregorian Chant to recreational activities. The initial signs of
the problem seemed insignificant, but underlying the minor differences in taste
was an unhealthy “Medievalism” – the desire to “restore” the tried and true
curriculum according to a romanticized “medieval model,” leaving behind what
were termed the excesses and deviations brought about by the
Counter-Reformation. Five months later, it was discovered that a break-away
society was secretly being planned. The Society of St. John was to establish a
religious life without the despised “deviations” (which were in fact the
glories of the Church).

This return to
an imagined Golden Age was, in fact, the construction of something completely
new; the Middle Ages are past and its return is impossible. In trying to
execute such a project in today’s world, it would be necessary to introduce
novelties that never existed in the history of the Church, much less in the
Middle Ages. This is precisely what the Modernists did at Vatican II. Every
innovation was justified by the call of a return to the pristine purity of the ancient
Church, while alongside there was the never avowed intention of avoiding the
burdens that life according to the Church’s doctrine and laws, and our own
statutes, impose upon us.

After a long
build-up, Bishop Williamson dismissed from the Seminary the “talented but proud
young Argentinian priest” (to quote the Bishop) who had spearheaded the plans
for the new society. He had seen this happen before: a recently-ordained,
intellectually brilliant priest using his skills in an effort to reshape the SSPX
in his own image and finally, when frustrated in his plans, resorting to
subversion and disobedience – taking others with him in his fall. Such as these
would have to go their own ways, while the Seminary continued to hand on what
it received from Archbishop Lefebvre.

As a consequence
of this affair, the Seminary lost two priests and over 12 seminarians.
Following these painful events, the Seminary was solemnly consecrated to the
Sacred Heart of Jesus on June 6th, to give glory to His name and reaffirm that
the Seminary is His domain.

Nevertheless,
however, there are more than a handful of priests in the Society of Saint Pius
X and in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter who look fondly upon the Ordo
Missae of 1965, which was in place for just five years before being
replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae itself (which was a period precisely
three years longer than the modernized 1961 Missal of John XXIII had been in
place). There are still some priests in the Society of Saint Pius X, for
example, who remain supportive, albeit privately, of the liturgical views of
Father Carlos Urrutigoity, the founder of the corrupt Society of Saint John,
which has now taken refuge under the protection, believe it or not, of the
conciliar bishop of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay, Rogelio Livieres Plano (who
issued a letter in support of the Society of Saint John on September 8, 2006),
a little fact that should prove that perversion is no impediment to being
welcomed in the official quarters of the conciliar church.

Urrutigoity's
belief, expressed to me personally in an interview I conducted with him in
Shohola, Pennsylvania, in November of 1999, is that "we should see where
the liturgy would have gone" had there not been the "polemics"
of the 1960s. In other words, "we" should be open to liturgical
change so as not to "cement" the Mass according to any one Missal,
which is why Urrutigoity, who had the full support of Pontifical Commission
Ecclesia Dei, said that he would sometimes use the Missal of 1910 or the Missal
of 1955 or the Missal of 1962 or the Missal of 1965, but never the Missal of
1969, he emphasized. Urrutigoity thus was in favor of some degree of
"approved" liturgical experimentation, a view that he professed
during his days as a teacher at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, before his expulsion from the Society of Saint Pius X circa 1998.

There were some
seminarians in Winona who supported Urrutigoity's liturgical approach but who
did not want to denounce the late Archbishop Lefebvre by following him,
Urrutigoity, out of the Society of Saint Pius X. There is at least some
sympathy for Urrutigoity's view of the liturgy in some circles with the Society
of Saint Pius X. Thus the very thing that has so devastated souls in the
counterfeit church of conciliarism, liturgical experimentation, has varying
degrees of support among some priests in the Society of Saint Pius X and among
a few "priests" in the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which has
the additional "baggage" of "priests" within its ranks in
France who will celebrate the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic service that is the Novus
Ordo Missae at the behest of the local conciliar bishop (see Griff Ruby's THERESURRECTIONOFTHEROMANCATHOLICCHURCH, an excellent review of the entire history of the Traditional
movement, "fair and balanced" as a certain Masonically-owned cable
propaganda network advertises itself).

"Then in 1906, after Leadbeater's return to
England, the fourteen-year-old son of the Corresponding Secretary of the
Esoteric Section in Chicago, whom Leadbeater had taken with him to San
Francisco on his first lecture tour, confessed to his parents the reason
for the antipathy he had conceived for his mentor, to whom he had at first
been greatly devoted -- Leadbeater had encouraged him in the habit of
masturbation. Almost simultaneously the son of another Theosophical
official in Chicago charged Leadbeater with the same offense without
apparently there being any collusion between the two boys. Then a
typewritten, unsigned, undated, cipher-letter was produced; it had been
picked up by a suspicious cleaner on the floor of a flat in Toronto in
which Leadbeater had stayed with the second boy and was said to have been
written by Leadbeater. The code was simple and when broken revealed one
passage of such obscenity, for those days, that the letter could not by
law be printed in England. When decoded the offending passage read: 'Glad
sensation is so pleasant. Thousand
kisses darling.'"